Jesus is God or Lord?

[Stranger]

I think you're misinterpreting what I am saying. Jesus was always God before he became flesh and blood but he was not Father God. Philippians 2:5-6,7. Scripture tells us he appeared as flesh, vindicated in the Spirit [cleared of blame], seen by angels...etc

16 And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great:
He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,preached among the nations,
believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Perhaps I misunderstood, so let me clarify.

The Son who is God, was never God the Father. And will never be God the Father. He is God the Son.

God the Son became flesh. When He became flesh, He is known as Jesus Christ. He is still God the Son.

In other words, Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. He wasn't God the Father. He was God the Son.

Stranger

 

[justaname]

Thanks everyone. Some great points and posts. Sorry brakelight, I didn't see the extra "s' in your comment. My apologies.

justaname your questions; I believe

1. Jesus was God and part of the Trinity pre-flesh
2. He made himself a little lower than angels [human] and lay aside his deity while in body to fulfill prophecy. He became a son to the obedience of his Father. Philippians 2:8
3. He took up his deity post-flesh and was given a name that was above every other name....

Hebrews1
1 Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways. 2 In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son. God has appointed Him heir of all things and made the universe through Him. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After making purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 So He became higher in rank than the angels, just as the name He inherited is superior to theirs.

I disagree with your conclusion. Jesus did not cease being God or forsake His divine nature rather He added human nature to His divine nature. This is the orthodox concept of the hypostatic union. Jesus did not lay aside His deity as you express, rather He suspended His divine attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience). This suspending means they were still present, but dormant during His incarnation.

God can not cease being God, or lay aside deity, since God is eternal in nature. Your concept reduces Jesus to a demigod.

demigod |ˈdemēˌɡäd|
noun
a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank: some Roman emperors claimed descent from demigods such as Hercules.

Here are excerpts from a good article relating to the hypostatic union:

Only if one assumes that the divine attributes were potential rather than active does it seem possible to ta1k about a real incarnation. If the Logos enters time and space omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, his entrance is a theophany. He certainly is not a human being like us. But on the other hand, if he abandons these attributes-attributes that belong to the essence of deity-he is reduced to the level of a mere human being. In the one case the humanity is not humanity at all; in the other case divinity is not divinity. The dilemma is resolved, however, if it is assumed that all the attributes of deity are present but latent.
-------------------------------------------------

Orthodox Christology has affirmed ontologically the full humanity and full deity in the one Person Jesus. The problem of how these two natures could practically function still exists. The New Testament- -predominantly the Synoptics--reveals a Jesus who experienced limitations and finiteness. He, furthermore, did not perform supernatural works out of his inherent deity but by dependence on the Father and empowered by the Holy Spirit. However, he did not divest his deity or his attributes of deity but curtailed their exercise. Jesus was unique as the Son of God and a prophet who enjoyed an intimacy and special status with the Father. Therefore, Jesus is a realistic model for his disciples on how to live in dependence on the Father and empowered by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Kingdom of God and minister in the supernatural as he did.
--------------------------------------------------

Jesus Christ, though fully God, was also fully man, with two natures in one person. How this relationship was expressed was never established by the orthodox creeds nor in classical Christian theology. To deny ontologically either Christ's humanity or his deity is considered heresy. However, I have argued that the writers of the New Testament saw Jesus Christ function as a finite man, empowered by the Holy Spirit at his baptism, under submission to the will of his Father and in a unique relationship with him as the Son of God and a prophet. The evidence shows that Jesus experienced limitations as any human being would face. If we say that Jesus was not finite and limited, then we must say that he was not human. Humanness entail finiteness and limitations. In order to become human and to suffer like us (Hebrews 2 and 5), by necessity, Jesus left his heavenly abode, set aside the exercise of his divine attributes while maintaining his divine nature, was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary, grew up as a boy and young man, and then entered ministIy after his baptism and anointing by the Spirit. This is the ultimate expression of faith. Whatever Jesus did, he did as a total human person by faith. Any other conception is an aberration.
-------------------------------------------------------

(CONCERNING PHIL 2:5-8) (Title mine)

The passage really only says that he emptied himself: that is, he emptied himself of himself (I owe this obvious but profound observation to Dr. Gordon Fee of Regent College). What does this mean? This entails what is described in verse 7b and c. These two aorist participial clauses (labon and genomerws) are coincident to the finite verb (ekenosen), and modal, as they explicate the manner in which the 'self-emptying' took place. He took the nature of a servant-which meant he had no rights whatsoever. Jesus also expressed this self-emptying by being made in human likeness. He became a man. Jesus as God took on the nature and characteristics of a slave and a man. We would argue that the language of ekenosen is metaphorical-that is, he did not literally empty himself of anything, but figuratively emptied himself of what he was when he became what he was not---a man.6
When Jesus emptied himself, he became what he was not before---a man. According to Gerald Hawthome, this means:
..., that Christ's self-giving was accomplished by taking, that his self- emptying was achieved by becoming what he was not before, that his kenosis came about not by subtraction but by addition, that his kenosis (an emptying) was in reality a plerosis (a filling). Thus, there is nothing in this crucial text that could possibly lend credence to any theory that claims that the eternal Son gave us any of his attributes in the incarnation, or that humanity is a realm which by definition excludes God. It seems, rather, to imply that there is an innate suitability of humanness for God and God for humanness, God having made human beings originally in his 'own image and likeness' (Gn. 1:27). [italics his]
..., in becoming a human being, the Son of God willed to renounce the exercise of his divine powers, attributes, prerogatives, so that he might live fully within those limitations which inhere in being truly human.7
Jesus maintained his divine nature even though he was a man. This is not inconsistent for humanness, for we may participate in the divine nature, as the following passage will disclose. Here is a theological atom- bomb that I do not believe has been given much explosive treatment for our own Christian anthropology:
his divine power has given everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (2 Pet. 1:3-4)

Article accessed on January 24,2017: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1993-4_311.pdf

 

[justaname]

I apologize for the rather large post above, but the hypostatic union is a difficult concept and I feel it is important to gain clarity through these detailed excerpts.

Concerning the OP.

In order to place our faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, it is necessary to understand who this person is and what His work entailed. A failure to recognize either of these properly is to place our faith in someone other than the Biblical Jesus. This is why John speaks of antichrists in his epistle (2 John 1:7, 1 John 4:2) where the humanity of Jesus is denied. To be deceived as to who Jesus is misplaces our faith and renders the gospel powerless. Jehovah Witness theology is considered heretical because they deny the deity of Christ stating He is a little "g" god and not is God as the Father is God. Orthodox Christianity contends Jesus is the Second Person of the ontological Trinity, the Son of God, the God-man, fully God and fully man. This is the view for the biblical Jesus as well as the historical Jesus throughout orthodox Christendom or what we would call the Catholic view. Any alteration to this view fundamentally changes the focus of our faith and undermines the Gospel.

 

[Angelina]

Perhaps I misunderstood, so let me clarify.

The Son who is God, was never God the Father. And will never be God the Father. He is God the Son.

God the Son became flesh. When He became flesh, He is known as Jesus Christ. He is still God the Son.

In other words, Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. He wasn't God the Father. He was God the Son.

Stranger

I don't believe that Jesus was always God the Son. John 1:1-2, John 1:14-15. I do believe that he became God's Son as per spoken by the angel Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:32, 35. Reiterated again in Matthew 3:17 and also in Romans 1:4. JMHO :huh:

 

[Angelina]

I'm sorry justaname, I just don't have the time to go through all your material but I will do my best.

I disagree with your conclusion. Jesus did not cease being God or forsake His divine nature rather He added human nature to His divine nature. This is the orthodox concept of the hypostatic union. Jesus did not lay aside His deity as you express, rather He suspended His divine attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience). This suspending means they were still present, but dormant during His incarnation.

That's fine you are more than welcome to disagree with me after all, it is my opinion and this is a discussion forum. I was struggling with the right words and decided on "laid aside" I don't think that I ever said that Jesus ceased being God. I believe that he had a purpose to fulfill, a mandate from the Father and he needed to do that as a human being. I believe we are saying the same thing only my vocabulary is not very large nor is it as eloquent...

Bless ya!

 

[Angelina]

I apologize for the rather large post above, but the hypostatic union is a difficult concept and I feel it is important to gain clarity through these detailed excerpts.

Concerning the OP.

In order to place our faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, it is necessary to understand who this person is and what His work entailed. A failure to recognize either of these properly is to place our faith in someone other than the Biblical Jesus. This is why John speaks of antichrists in his epistle (2 John 1:7, 1 John 4:2) where the humanity of Jesus is denied. To be deceived as to who Jesus is misplaces our faith and renders the gospel powerless. Jehovah Witness theology is considered heretical because they deny the deity of Christ stating He is a little "g" god and not is God as the Father is God. Orthodox Christianity contends Jesus is the Second Person of the ontological Trinity, the Son of God, the God-man, fully God and fully man. This is the view for the biblical Jesus as well as the historical Jesus throughout orthodox Christendom or what we would call the Catholic view. Any alteration to this view fundamentally changes the focus of our faith and undermines the Gospel.

k

 

[justaname]

I'm sorry justaname, I just don't have the time to go through all your material but I will do my best.


That's fine you are more than welcome to disagree with me after all, it is my opinion and this is a discussion forum. I was struggling with the right words and decided on "laid aside" I don't think that I ever said that Jesus ceased being God. I believe that he had a purpose to fulfill, a mandate from the Father and he needed to do that as a human being. I believe we are saying the same thing only my vocabulary is not very large nor is it as eloquent...

Bless ya!

Thank you so much for your humility and clarification again. Love you in the Lord dear sister! Also I apologize I did not recognize your position with the wording you gave. Perhaps I could have asked for further clarification before I commented.

 

[Stranger]

I don't believe that Jesus was always God the Son. John 1:1-2, John 1:14-15. I do believe that he became God's Son as per spoken by the angel Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:32, 35. Reiterated again in Matthew 3:17 and also in Romans 1:4. JMHO :huh:

(John 17:5) " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Stranger

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Hewbrews 13:8 http://biblehub.com/hebrews/13-8.htm

 

[Angelina]

I love you in the Lord too brother justaname and please don't give it another thought. Just recently, a friend pointed out that I make statements but I don't go into detail because I assume they understand what I meaning :huh: and they don't. Apparently they are not mind readers lol! I will endeavor to elaborate more in future. I try to be concise because I don't like being too wordy which doesn't always come across the right way.

(John 17:5) " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Stranger

Hi Stranger, one of the reasons I do not believe that Jesus was always God's Son is because scripture tells us in John 3:16 that Jesus was God's only begotten son. This indicates being Fathered ~ to procreate or generate offspring. This makes sense when Jesus was born into the world by the Holy Spirit but it does not work well if he were already the Son of God prior to being born. A begotten son is not eternal. The idea that Jesus was the Son in heaven prior to coming down to earth via a virgin birth, suggests that he had a beginning and as far as I understand, the second person of the Godhead is God [Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6] and he has always existed ergo ~ eternal. JMHO :huh:

Bless ya!

 

[Stranger]

I love you in the Lord too brother justaname and please don't give it another thought. Just recently, a friend pointed out that I make statements but I don't go into detail because I assume they understand what I meaning :huh: and they don't. Apparently they are not mind readers lol! I will endeavor to elaborate more in future. I try to be concise because I don't like being too wordy which doesn't always come across the right way.


Hi Stranger, one of the reasons I do not believe that Jesus was always God's Son is because scripture tells us in John 3:16 that Jesus was God's only begotten son. This indicates being Fathered ~ to procreate or generate offspring. This makes sense when Jesus was born into the world by the Holy Spirit but it does not work well if he were already the Son of God prior to being born. A begotten son is not eternal. The idea that Jesus was the Son in heaven prior to coming down to earth via a virgin birth, suggests that he had a beginning and as far as I understand, the second person of the Godhead is God [Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6] and he has always existed ergo ~ eternal. JMHO :huh:

Bless ya!

I understand what you are saying but I do disagree. That Jesus was God's 'only begotten' does indicate being Fathered. And, the incarnation was certainly the beginning of when the Son had a body. But that in no way indicates the beginning of The Son. Note what (Is.9:6) says, "...a child is born...a son is given...." The Son was not born. The Son was given. The Son was always eternally with the Father.

And, the term 'only begotten' does not refer to the virgin birth of Christ. It refers to the resurrection of Christ. (Acts 13:33) "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise I will give you the sure mercies of David." This too is a beginning. It's a beginning where a body combined with the Spirit of the individual raised by the Father making Jesus Christ the 'Firstborn of many brethren'. (Rom. 8:29 " For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren." Which is you and I who are also, 'born again'. The resurrection is our birthing room as it was for Christ. (1Peter 1:3) " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"

None of these things mean or indicate in any way that the Son did not always exist with the Father, and Holy Spirit.

Please consider these things sister. As well as (John 17:5)

Stranger

 

[Dcopymope]

I understand what you are saying but I do disagree. That Jesus was God's 'only begotten' does indicate being Fathered. And, the incarnation was certainly the beginning of when the Son had a body. But that in no way indicates the beginning of The Son. Note what (Is.9:6) says, "...a child is born...a son is given...." The Son was not born. The Son was given. The Son was always eternally with the Father.

And, the term 'only begotten' does not refer to the virgin birth of Christ. It refers to the resurrection of Christ. (Acts 13:33) "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise I will give you the sure mercies of David." This too is a beginning. It's a beginning where a body combined with the Spirit of the individual raised by the Father making Jesus Christ the 'Firstborn of many brethren'. (Rom. 8:29 " For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren." Which is you and I who are also, 'born again'. The resurrection is our birthing room as it was for Christ. (1Peter 1:3) " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"

None of these things mean or indicate in any way that the Son did not always exist with the Father, and Holy Spirit.

Please consider these things sister. As well as (John 17:5)

Stranger

Agreed, if Jesus is not God, then that makes him a created being and NOT begotten of God. Nothing else is ever stated to be begotten of the Father except Jesus. There is no in between, you are either created or you aren't, and the only thing stated to be not created is Yahweh. I'm sure no one believes that they are saved in the name of a created being do they? Can a created being claim to be an intercessor between the Father and the creation? Can a created being claim to be before all things and the creator of all things at the same time? Is it logical to believe that a created being can reconcile what God created unto God? Can a created being claim to be one with the Father? Can a created being claim that nothing in heaven or earth gets to the Father but through him? That would be quite blasphemous and an oxy-moron, wouldn't it?

 

[Angelina]

I understand what you are saying but I do disagree. That Jesus was God's 'only begotten' does indicate being Fathered. And, the incarnation was certainly the beginning of when the Son had a body. But that in no way indicates the beginning of The Son. Note what (Is.9:6) says, "...a child is born...a son is given...." The Son was not born. The Son was given. The Son was always eternally with the Father.

And, the term 'only begotten' does not refer to the virgin birth of Christ. It refers to the resurrection of Christ. (Acts 13:33) "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise I will give you the sure mercies of David." This too is a beginning. It's a beginning where a body combined with the Spirit of the individual raised by the Father making Jesus Christ the 'Firstborn of many brethren'. (Rom. 8:29 " For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren." Which is you and I who are also, 'born again'. The resurrection is our birthing room as it was for Christ. (1Peter 1:3) " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"

None of these things mean or indicate in any way that the Son did not always exist with the Father, and Holy Spirit.

Please consider these things sister. As well as (John 17:5)

Stranger

Hi Stranger, thanks for your input. I also understand what you are saying...This is my opinion which it does not necessarily reflect the forums position in any way. You quoted Isaiah 9:6 which can easily correspond with Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 as giving birth to/conceiving a son. Luke 1:35 also states "And the angel answered her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God." ESV. This verse indicates a future tense and not present tense. Not all biblical scholars believe in the doctrine of eternal sonship and there are evangelicals on both sides of this debate.

John1:1-3 tells us that Jesus is God. John 1:14 tells us that he became flesh and lived among us. Those who were with him observed his glory as the only begotten. HCSB says ~"the one and only son from the Father". This does not discount the idea that those who were observing him were not referring to his virgin birth.

Hebrews 1:5 denotes the idea that the Father has gotten a Son ~ 5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, You are My Son; today I have become Your Father, or again, I will be His Father, and He will be My Son?

If Jesus was already God's eternal son, the Father would not have needed to declare a specific day for the event to take place. I will be His Father, and He will be My Son? Future tense.

You quoted John 17:5 which is my favorite chapter. Jesus was speaking as one who was still in the flesh and in obedience to God's mandate which was about to be fulfilled and as one who came into the world as his only [begotten] son. They are one but at this moment in time, he is still the son.

Bless ya!

 

[Angelina]

Agreed, if Jesus is not God, then that makes him a created being and NOT begotten of God. Nothing else is ever stated to be begotten of the Father except Jesus. There is no in between, you are either created or you aren't, and the only thing stated to be not created is Yahweh. I'm sure no one believes that they are saved in the name of a created being do they? Can a created being claim to be an intercessor between the Father and the creation? Can a created being claim to be before all things and the creator of all things at the same time? Is it logical to believe that a created being can reconcile what God created unto God? Can a created being claim to be one with the Father? Can a created being claim that nothing in heaven or earth gets to the Father but through him? That would be quite blasphemous and an oxy-moron, wouldn't it?

Hey Dcopymope, no one here is saying the Jesus is not God. The issue seems to be more about his eternal sonship. We were discussing "begotten" in the manner of being born in the flesh through the power of the Holy Spirit in comparison to eternal sonship and as far as I understand "begotten son" being a position after he was resurrected rather than before.. I believe that Jesus is God and became the son for the sake of mankind, the moment his holy seed was planted. JMHO

 

[Stranger]

Hi Stranger, thanks for your input. I also understand what you are saying...This is my opinion which it does not necessarily reflect the forums position in any way. You quoted Isaiah 9:6 which can easily correspond with Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 as giving birth to/conceiving a son. Luke 1:35 also states "And the angel answered her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God." ESV. This verse indicates a future tense and not present tense. Not all biblical scholars believe in the doctrine of eternal sonship and there are evangelicals on both sides of this debate.

John1:1-3 tells us that Jesus is God. John 1:14 tells us that he became flesh and lived among us. Those who were with him observed his glory as the only begotten. HCSB says ~"the one and only son from the Father". This does not discount the idea that those who were observing him were not referring to his virgin birth.

Hebrews 1:5 denotes the idea that the Father has gotten a Son ~ 5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, You are My Son; today I have become Your Father, or again, I will be His Father, and He will be My Son?

If Jesus was already God's eternal son, the Father would not have needed to declare a specific day for the event to take place. I will be His Father, and He will be My Son? Future tense.

You quoted John 17:5 which is my favorite chapter. Jesus was speaking as one who was still in the flesh and in obedience to God's mandate which was about to be fulfilled and as one who came into the world as his only [begotten] son. They are one but at this moment in time, he is still the son.

Bless ya!

I don't follow. Yes, the passages in Isaiah, and Matthew, and Luke indicate that the child is deity, is the Son of God. In Luke the tense is naturally future because the child hasn't been born yet.

Yes, (John 1:3,14) tells us that Jesus is God. I have no problem there.

Yes (Heb.1:5) does say the Father begot the Son, and on a particular day. That I already showed you in my last post. See (Acts 13:33). That specific day was the resurrection, not the incarnation. (Heb.1:6) supports this because it says it is speaking of the time when the 'firstbegotten' is brought into the world. Just because the resurrected Christ was a new creation, does not mean that the Son did not co-exist with the Father throughout all eternity. Jesus was the first, you and I are somewhere down the line.

The term 'only begotten' refers to Christ as the One in whom all the promises are given. The covenant one. As far as numbers go, Christ is not the only begotten, because you and I and all other believers are begotten also. But only Christ is the Covenant One. Remember what God said to Abraham when he told him to sacrifice Isaac? (Gen.22:2) "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,..." But Isaac wasn't his only son. He had Ishmael already. But Isaac was the Covenant son. Only begotten speaks to the Covenant son. First begotten speaks to Christ as the first One raised from the dead by His Spirit giving Him new life. But, even though this was a first time event, doesn't mean the Son did not always exist with the Father.

I don't understand your statement on (John 17:5). Jesus is talking to the Father. He is not talking to Himself.


Stranger

 

[Angelina]

Hi Stranger,

Yes (Heb.1:5) does say the Father begot the Son, and on a particular day. That I already showed you in my last post. See (Acts 13:33). That specific day was the resurrection, not the incarnation. (Heb.1:6) supports this because it says it is speaking of the time when the 'firstbegotten' is brought into the world. Just because the resurrected Christ was a new creation, does not mean that the Son did not co-exist with the Father throughout all eternity. Jesus was the first, you and I are somewhere down the line.

I don't agree with your premise that scripture was referring to "begotten" as per the resurrection "only" but that scripture refers to the begotten Son of God from birth all the way through to the resurrection. The resurrection was the fulfillment of prophecy as per Acts 13:33 but that does not mean that Jesus was not God's son since birth?

Just because the resurrected Christ was a new creation, does not mean that the Son did not co-exist with the Father throughout all eternity. Jesus was the first, you and I are somewhere down the line.

I don't know why you said the above? It doesn't seem to fit into our conversation in any way? :huh: I think we might be talking past one another....

The term 'only begotten' refers to Christ as the One in whom all the promises are given. The covenant one. As far as numbers go, Christ is not the only begotten, because you and I and all other believers are begotten also. But only Christ is the Covenant One. Remember what God said to Abraham when he told him to sacrifice Isaac? (Gen.22:2) "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,..." But Isaac wasn't his only son. He had Ishmael already. But Isaac was the Covenant son. Only begotten speaks to the Covenant son. First begotten speaks to Christ as the first One raised from the dead by His Spirit giving Him new life. But, even though this was a first time event, doesn't mean the Son did not always exist with the Father.

The word "begotten" is a past particle of beget which refers to being Fathered or producing an offspring. If the writers did not want to confuse such a word, they would not have placed it in John 3:16. Many bibles cite the word "begotten" as one who has fathered offspring.

The term 'only begotten' refers to Christ as the One in whom all the promises are given. The covenant one. As far as numbers go, Christ is not the only begotten, because you and I and all other believers are begotten also. But only Christ is the Covenant One. Remember what God said to Abraham when he told him to sacrifice Isaac? (Gen.22:2) "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,..." But Isaac wasn't his only son. He had Ishmael already. But Isaac was the Covenant son. Only begotten speaks to the Covenant son. First begotten speaks to Christ as the first One raised from the dead by His Spirit giving Him new life. But, even though this was a first time event, doesn't mean the Son did not always exist with the Father.

I don't agree. Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father. I do not believe that was his position prior to being born of a woman through the Holy Spirit [the doctrine of eternal sonship]. He came from the kingdom of heaven and he returned to the kingdom. He fulfilled all that was spoken about him by the prophets and he was given a name higher than any other name. You referred to Isaac. He was the from the line in which the promise would come. Well I have never said that Jesus never existed before being born into the world...

I don't understand your statement on (John 17:5). Jesus is talking to the Father. He is not talking to Himself.

I didn't say that Jesus was talking to himself. Please read again...and I hope this did not confuse you. I have edited it to make it as clear as I can... :huh:

my post from #33

You quoted John 17:5 which is my favorite chapter. Jesus was speaking as one someone who was still in the flesh and in obedience to God's mandate which was about to be fulfilled and as one someone who came into the world as his only [begotten] son. They are one [John 17:11, 20-21] but at this moment in time, he is still the son.

 

[mjrhealth]

Mat_3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I would of though that would of being enough, Jesus is Gods son born from His weed which is His word that He speaks.

Mat_3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

How do you think Mary got pregnant.

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God

God didnt come to earth, He was still dwelling in Heaven and in the temple, Holy of Holies with teh High Priests

Untill

Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

than God came out so we could walk with him as Adam did because of what Jesus did.

And Jesus was just like His father as any father would hope there children would be like them, thats why He said, "if you have seeing me you have seeing the father"

Because

Joh_5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
And so Jesus being the son of God and being in His likeness, which is Gods ultimate aim for all His sons, demonstrated who His father is by showing man the love God has for us.

1Jn_3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

And so, in the end God will have lots of sons Just like Christ because of Christ.

 

[Stranger]

Hi Stranger,

I don't agree with your premise that scripture was referring to "begotten" as per the resurrection "only" but that scripture refers to the begotten Son of God from birth all the way through to the resurrection. The resurrection was the fulfillment of prophecy as per Acts 13:33 but that does not mean that Jesus was not God's son since birth?


I don't know why you said the above? It doesn't seem to fit into our conversation in any way? :huh: I think we might be talking past one another....


The word "begotten" is a past particle of beget which refers to being Fathered or producing an offspring. If the writers did not want to confuse such a word, they would not have placed it in John 3:16. Many bibles cite the word "begotten" as one who has fathered offspring.


I don't agree. Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father. I do not believe that was his position prior to being born of a woman through the Holy Spirit [the doctrine of eternal sonship]. He came from the kingdom of heaven and he returned to the kingdom. He fulfilled all that was spoken about him by the prophets and he was given a name higher than any other name. You referred to Isaac. He was the from the line in which the promise would come. Well I have never said that Jesus never existed before being born into the world...


I didn't say that Jesus was talking to himself. Please read again...and I hope this did not confuse you. I have edited it to make it as clear as I can... :huh:

my post from #33

Concerning the term 'only begotten', John 3:16 does not take away from the meaning I gave which is that Christ is the Covenant Son. I believe that (Acts 13:33), which is a quote of (Psalm 2:7), is clear that it was a certain day, and that day was the resurrection. And also, it would be a false term if it did not mean the Covenant Son, because Jesus was not the 'only begotten' numerically. You and I are 'sons' begotten of God also. Which is why Jesus is also called the 'Firstborn of many brethren'.

Just because the Son has a new beginning, either being born in the flesh at the incarnation or being resurrected, and the term 'begotten' is used, does not indicate in any way that the Son did not exist throughout eternity with the Father.

Concerning John 17:5:

1.You say "Jesus was speaking as someone who was still in the flesh". I say yes, and this Jesus was God the Son in the flesh.

2. You say Jesus was "as someone who came into the world as his only [begotten] son." I say yes, and before God the Son was begotten in humanity, be it incarnation or resurrection, He existed with the Father eternally.

3. You say, "They are one [John 17:11, 20-21] but at this moment and time, he is still the son." This makes no sense to me. Verse 5 is clear that the Son existed with the Father before the world began. The Son is always the Son, whether before He became man, or when He became man, or after He was resurrected. He is the Son today at the right hand of the Father.

What do you mean when you say 'They are one'?

Stranger

 

[Angelina]

Concerning the term 'only begotten', John 3:16 does not take away from the meaning I gave which is that Christ is the Covenant Son. I believe that (Acts 13:33), which is a quote of (Psalm 2:7), is clear that it was a certain day, and that day was the resurrection. And also, it would be a false term if it did not mean the Covenant Son, because Jesus was not the 'only begotten' numerically. You and I are 'sons' begotten of God also. Which is why Jesus is also called the 'Firstborn of many brethren'.

I did not think that we were discussing the Covenant here but okay. My impression if I understand this correctly, is that you believe the resurrection was the day Jesus became God's son. What I was trying to point out was that God called him son right at the beginning of his being born into the world Luke 1:35, when he was baptized and began his ministry Matthew 3:17 and even before he was born through the O/T prophets Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6

added: Jesus was called the first born of many brethren because no one had ever been raised from the dead and ascended into heaven. He was also called the firstborn from the dead ~1 Colossians 1:18, Revelation 1:5. The firstborn among many brothers ~ Romans 8:29.

Just because the Son has a new beginning, either being born in the flesh at the incarnation or being resurrected, and the term 'begotten' is used, does not indicate in any way that the Son did not exist throughout eternity with the Father.

Please give me scripture to back up your thesis that Jesus was the Son in heaven prior to coming down to earth in human form through the virgin birth....

Concerning John 17:5:1.You say "Jesus was speaking as someone who was still in the flesh". I say yes, and this Jesus was God the Son in the flesh.

Good! This is what I understood was our main point of contention. My understanding was that you believed, based on your comments, that Jesus was not God's Son until the resurrection.

2. You say Jesus was "as someone who came into the world as his only [begotten] son." I say yes, and before God the Son was begotten in humanity, be it incarnation or resurrection, He existed with the Father eternally.

Of course he did...please go back and read my comments again but I do not necessarily agree with the doctrine of eternal sonship.

3. You say, "They are one [John 17:11, 20-21] but at this moment and time, he is still the son." This makes no sense to me. Verse 5 is clear that the Son existed with the Father before the world began. The Son is always the Son, whether before He became man, or when He became man, or after He was resurrected. He is the Son today at the right hand of the Father.

...are you kidding me???? :huh: This is a strawman's argument. Our point of contention was that you believed that Jesus became God's son at the resurrection and I was saying he was God's son at the beginning of his being born into the world and right up to his death and resurrection. Now you are changing your argument to the doctrine of eternal sonship. I think you need to go back on some of the comments we have made....

 

[Stranger]

I did not think that we were discussing the Covenant here but okay. My impression if I understand this correctly, is that you believe the resurrection was the day Jesus became God's son. What I was trying to point out was that God called him son right at the beginning of his being born into the world Luke 1:35, when he was baptized and began his ministry Matthew 3:17 and even before he was born through the O/T prophets Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6

added: Jesus was called the first born of many brethren because no one had ever been raised from the dead and ascended into heaven. He was also called the firstborn from the dead ~1 Colossians 1:18, Revelation 1:5. The firstborn among many brothers ~ Romans 8:29.

Please give me scripture to back up your thesis that Jesus was the Son in heaven prior to coming down to earth in human form through the virgin birth....

Good! This is what I understood was our main point of contention. My understanding was that you believed, based on your comments, that Jesus was not God's Son until the resurrection.

Of course he did...please go back and read my comments again but I do not necessarily agree with the doctrine of eternal sonship.


...are you kidding me???? :huh: This is a strawman's argument. Our point of contention was that you believed that Jesus became God's son at the resurrection and I was saying he was God's son at the beginning of his being born into the world and right up to his death and resurrection. Now you are changing your argument to the doctrine of eternal sonship. I think you need to go back on some of the comments we have made....

The resurrection was the day that The Son, who existed with God from all eternity, became begotten of God. He was not begotten as The Son who existed with God the Father in all eternity. He was begotten at the resurrection. (Acts 13:33)

So, you do not believe that Jesus as 'Firstborn among many brethren' speaks to you and I as born sons of God?

I gave you John 17:5 which is clear. The Son is talking to The Father. He testified that He Himself existed with the Father before the world began.

I have always said that God the Son existed with God the Father throughout all eternity. I have always said that when The Son, who existed with God throughout eternity, was declared as begotten of God the Father, it was at the resurrection. (Acts 13:33)

Well, if you believe the Son existed always with the Father throughout all eternity, why deny the Son's eternal sonship?

I have not changed my belief or argument at all. I believe you and I don't communicate well.

Stranger